DEBUNKED: Study of 1.7 Million Kids and Teens Who Got Pfizer COVID Vaccine Found Myopericarditis Only in Vaxed Groups

[Juanne Pili]

Hello, everyone,
Since English is not my native language, I use ChatGPT to help me improve the way I communicate, because these are topics for which I would like to be as clear and precise as possible, sorry if this is a bother for you.

I'd like to share my findings from an analysis of a preprint study [ https://bit.ly/3Yt6zPW ] that's been heavily promoted by the Children's Health Defense organization.

According to an article from this group, [ https://archive.ph/45pYE ] the study allegedly shows that the Pfizer vaccine is more dangerous than it is safe and effective, citing cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in children and adolescents. However, after reading the study myself, it doesn't seem to me that the researchers are suggesting this conclusion.

In Italy, several anti-vaccine users have been translating and sharing the article, [ https://bit.ly/4f8Kvjm ] further distorting its meaning. Some are even claiming that out of 1.7 million vaccinated minors, all of them developed health issues. This has led me to question whether these individuals are actually reading the sources they cite. It doesn't appear that way to me.

Below, I outline the reasons why I find the Children's Health Defense narrative unconvincing. Of course, I'd love to hear your feedback as well.

Upon conducting a quick keyword analysis of the study, I immediately noticed something off. For example, terms like «myopericarditis, myocarditis, or pericarditis» certainly appear in the text, but they are not mentioned in the Conclusions section, which should highlight the most significant findings of the study. It's important to note that preprint articles are documents awaiting peer review before being accepted for publication in a scientific journal. Here's what the summary version of the Conclusions states:

«Conclusion BNT162b2 vaccination in adolescents reduced COVID-19 A&E attendance and hospitalisation, although these outcomes were rare. Protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 tests was transient».

View attachment 72437

Even in the extended version of the Conclusions, I find no references to cases of myocarditis or pericarditis:

«This study found that initial protection by BNT162b2 vaccination against positive SARS-CoV-2 tests in adolescents aged 12-15 had waned by 14 weeks after vaccination. Rates of COVID-19 hospitalisation and COVID-19 A&E attendance were lower after first and second dose BNT162b2 vaccination in adolescents. Positive SARS-CoV-2 testing could not be considered for children. Severe outcomes were rare in children: there were fewer than seven (exact number redacted) COVID-19 hospitalisations and no COVID-19 A&E attendances, critical care admissions or COVID-19 deaths».

View attachment 72438

Anti-vaccine advocates might argue that cases of pericarditis and myocarditis were still found by researchers among vaccinated individuals. However, the results confirm that these are rare events relative to the 1.7 million individuals highlighted by anti-vaccine narratives. Here's what we can read in the summary of the results:

«myocarditis and pericarditis were documented only in the vaccinated groups, with rates of 27 and 10 cases/million after first and second doses respectively».

View attachment 72439

These numbers are insignificant, and it's likely the researchers expected to find them given the large sample size. Criticizing vaccination in minors based on these findings would be like advising against the use of brakes or seatbelts just because rare incidents each year are attributed to their use.

In fact, the researchers didn't find anything unusual compared to what had already been identified in previous investigations by the EMA here in the EU (your FDA did the same, as did Pfizer) and in subsequent studies. To explore further, I'll list just three sources:

• WHO, COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS): updated guidance regarding myocarditis and pericarditis reported with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines [ https://bit.ly/4f3EfJB ];
• Reuters, EU finds potential link between heart inflammation and mRNA COVID shots [ https://reut.rs/4hbyeMI ];
• Science, In rare cases, coronavirus vaccines may cause Long Covid–like symptoms [ https://bit.ly/3NtIRwR ].

As mentioned earlier, I'm very interested in hearing your feedback, as I'm sure there are other clues in the paper (which seems to be well-conducted) that demonstrate how the researchers' work has been completely misunderstood.

 

[Mendel]

Please review Metabunk's link policy at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metabunks-link-policy.5158/ . In short, you must quote relevant content, and you must not use url shorteners.

I'd like to share my findings from an analysis of a preprint study [ https://bit.ly/3Yt6zPW ] that's been heavily promoted by the Children's Health Defense organization.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.20.24306810v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.20.24306810v1.full.pdf
OpenSAFELY: Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents, by Colm D Andrews, Edward P K Parker, et al.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.20.24306810
You quote from this below.

According to an article from this group, [ https://archive.ph/45pYE ] the study allegedly shows that the Pfizer vaccine is more dangerous than it is safe and effective, citing cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in children and adolescents. However, after reading the study myself, it doesn't seem to me that the researchers are suggesting this conclusion.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...id-vaccine-myopericarditis-only-vaxed-groups/

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine provided children and teens in England with only about 14 to 15 weeks of protection against testing positive for the virus, according to a preprint study of over 1.7 million children ages 5 to 15 in the English National Healthcare System (NHS).

Researchers investigating the safety and effectiveness of Pfizer's vaccine in fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated children and teens, also found cases of myocarditis and pericarditis only in vaccinated children.

"This study clearly shows that Pfizer's COVID vaccine provides almost no benefit to children and adolescents, but does increase their risk of myocarditis and pericarditis," said Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer of Children's Health Defense. "It begs the question: Why does the CDC continue to recommend these unlicensed shots for kids? Where is the data they use to support their statement that the benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks?"

In Italy, several anti-vaccine users have been translating and sharing the article, [ https://bit.ly/4f8Kvjm ] further distorting its meaning. Some are even claiming that out of 1.7 million vaccinated minors, all of them developed health issues. This has led me to question whether these individuals are actually reading the sources they cite. It doesn't appear that way to me.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=498227493201686&set=a.120130767678029

In fact, the researchers didn't find anything unusual compared to what had already been identified in previous investigations by the EMA here in the EU (your FDA did the same, as did Pfizer) and in subsequent studies. To explore further, I'll list just three sources:

• WHO, COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS): updated guidance regarding myocarditis and pericarditis reported with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines [ https://bit.ly/4f3EfJB ];

https://www.who.int/news/item/09-07...ocarditis-pericarditis-covid-19-mrna-vaccines

• Very rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been observed following vaccination with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These cases occurred more often in younger men and after the second dose of the vaccine, typically within few days after vaccination. Current evidence suggests a likely causal association between myocarditis and the mRNA vaccines
• Available data suggest that the immediate course of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination is generally mild and responds to conservative treatment (e.g. rest, treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs etc). Follow-up is ongoing to determine long term outcomes.

• Reuters, EU finds potential link between heart inflammation and mRNA COVID shots [ https://reut.rs/4hbyeMI ];

https://www.reuters.com/business/he...ossible-side-effect-mrna-vaccines-2021-07-09/

July 9 (Reuters) - Europe's drug regulator has found a possible link between very rare heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech opens new tab and Modernaopens new tab, it said on Friday, stressing that the benefits of the shots outweighed any risks.
The conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, must be listed as side-effects of the two mRNA vaccines, the safety committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said, adding that such cases primarily occurred within 14 days of inoculation.

It said cases occurred more often after the second dose and in younger adult men. This is in line with U.S. findings last month.

Symptoms from the conditions include breathlessness, palpitations and chest pain.

• Science, In rare cases, coronavirus vaccines may cause Long Covid–like symptoms [ https://bit.ly/3NtIRwR ].

https://www.science.org/content/art...avirus-vaccines-may-cause-long-covid-symptoms
I really don't know how this is relevant. It's not about children, and it's far from clear that (or how) the vaccination caused the symptoms.

Cheng has heard from dozens of people who describe chronic postvaccine problems, and she finds the overlap between their symptoms and those of Long Covid compelling. Now, she wants to move deliberately and scientifically in a search for answers. "We've got to retain rigor," she says. "There's just this complete dearth of data."

 

[Juanne Pili]

OK, I'll delete the post right away. It doesn't matter. Sorry

 

[Mendel]

I think that the claim in the thread title is true.

I also think the study supports this opinion:

"This study clearly shows that Pfizer's COVID vaccine provides almost no benefit to children and adolescents, but does increase their risk of myocarditis and pericarditis," said Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer of Children's Health Defense. "It begs the question: Why does the CDC continue to recommend these unlicensed shots for kids? Where is the data they use to support their statement that the benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks?"

Compare:

Generally, these kinds of decisions are informed by more than a single study.

 

[Mendel]

OK, I'll delete the post right away. It doesn't matter. Sorry

after I went through the effort of quoting that content for you? that's thankless.

Metabunk moderation thinks nothing of deleting posts like yours, it has happened many times.

 

[Juanne Pili]

Yes, it would be better to delete it, but I'm afraid I can't do it alone. I trust the moderators. When I have time to study your rules well I will post again, I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

[John J.]

Yes, it would be better to delete it, but I'm afraid I can't do it alone. I trust the moderators. When I have time to study your rules well I will post again, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Don't worry, you made a common mistake which many of us have made when we were new here.
Mendel is right to mention the links policy, of course.

But, you raised an important issue- a claim which might alter people's perceptions of vaccine safety, and you have identified flaws in that claim, which strongly indicate that the claim is unreliable.

The article you quoted from The Defender / Children's Health Defense, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...id-vaccine-myopericarditis-only-vaxed-groups/, Brenda Balleti (3rd October 2024) says

There were no COVID-19 deaths among any of the study subjects.

While this is true of the study subjects-
(and remembering clinically vulnerable children were excluded from the study, see
"OpenSAFELY: Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents", Andrews, C.D., Parker, E.P.K., Horne, E. et al., posted by medRxiv, 20 May 2024, not yet peer-reviewed, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.20.24306810v1.full.pdf)

-in the context of the article it is a partial truth that without context might be misleading. While we know the risks of COVID-19 to most children is very small, there were deaths of children and young people from COVID-19 in the United Kingdom and many other countries:
In response to a Freedom Of Information request, the Office for National Statistics (confusingly, "National" here means England and Wales, about 88% of UK population; Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate, similar organisations) said

From March 2020 to October 2022, there are 88 deaths registered as due to COVID-19 in England and Wales. This is for the age under 1 to age 18 age band.

Deaths of children from COVID-19 in England and Wales 2020 to 2022, 01 December 2022,
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...hildrenfromcovid19inenglandandwales2020to2022

It seems likely that without vaccination, the number of UK child deaths due to COVID 19 would have been higher. Children considered to be at greater risk of serious illness from COVID 19 were prioritised for vaccination, a policy that remains.

The possible side-effects of COVID-19 vaccination, including e.g. myocarditis, are considered against the limited benefits that the vaccines confer to most children.

From UK central government's Department of Health & Social Care,
COVID-19: A guide for parents of children 6 months to 11 years of age at high risk, updated 29 June 2023,

Children at higher risk from COVID-19 infection

Children at serious risk from the complications of COVID-19 infection include those:
-with severe neurodisabilities
-whose immune systems don't work as well (immunosuppression)
-with profound and multiple or severe learning disabilities (including Down's syndrome), and those on the learning disability register
-with long-term serious conditions affecting their health

Eligible children and young people who are aged 6 months to 11 years should have the COVID-19 vaccinations. Your GP or specialist will know if they need to have the vaccine.

...Rare but serious side effects
Worldwide, there have been rare cases of inflammation of the heart reported after the adult dose of COVID-19 vaccines. This seems to be extremely rare after the children's dose.

These cases have been seen within a few days of vaccination. Most people felt better after a few days of simple treatment.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...dren-6-months-to-11-years-of-age-at-high-risk

UK Department of Health & Social Care again,
COVID-19 vaccination of children aged 6 months to 4 years: JCVI advice, 9 December 2022 (updated 26 April 2023),

-children aged 6 months to 4 years in a clinical risk group (as defined in the Green Book) should be offered two 3-microgram doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty®) with an interval of at least 8 weeks between the first and second doses
... ...
-JCVI does not currently advise COVID-19 vaccination of children aged 6 months to 4 years who are not in a clinical risk group

and

Myocarditis is an extremely rare adverse event that has been associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Amongst children, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination decreases with decreasing age. No myocarditis events were reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after vaccination of over 1 million children aged 6 months to 4 years

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...months-to-4-years-jcvi-advice-9-december-2022

UK COVID-19 vaccinations began on 08 December 2020, no children received any of the vaccines until mid-2021:

Vaccinations began on 8 December 2020 after Margaret Keenan became the first person in the world (outside trials) to receive her first dose...

Healthy individuals under the age of 18, and all under 16s, were not part of the initial vaccine rollout, on the grounds of their relatively low risk from the virus and the then limited availability of evidence relating to COVID-19 vaccines' effects on young people. On 19 July 2021, the vaccine rollout was expanded to vulnerable adolescents from the age of 12 and young people in the three months prior to their 18th birthday. They were joined by all 16- and 17-year-olds on 4 August.
The Vaccinations Committee did not endorse vaccines for healthy 12- to 15-year-olds, on the grounds of only 'marginal gain' to the health of individual children. However, the UK's Chief Medical Officers agreed to the rollout of a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine to this age group on 13 September in order to reduce disruption to education. Second doses, three months or more after their first, were expanded to this age range on 29 November.

On 15 and 16 February 2022, plans were announced across the UK to expand the Pfizer vaccine rollout to children from the age of five; the Vaccinations Committee approved this, taking into account an estimate that over 85% of all children aged 5 to 11 had experienced COVID-19 infection by the end of the previous month. That plan was later reversed, with no children under 12 being eligible after 1 September 2022 except for those in high-risk groups.

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_the_United_Kingdom

There doesn't appear to have been an upsurge of myocarditis deaths in children in England and Wales since they started receiving COVID-19 vaccinations (pericarditis tends to be a significantly less severe condition).

Using the NOMIS searchable datasets
( https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/construct/summary.asp?mode=construct&version=0&dataset=161) as advised by the UK Office of National Statistics,

We have published mortality data by cause for 2013 to 2020 in the explorable dataset available on our NOMIS webservice.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...myocarditisdeathsforthelast10yearsbyageandsex

-we can compare the relevant figures; I've used the years 2016-2023.
Note, no childhood vaccinations before July 2021.
I've used the international reporting codes I40 Acute myocarditis, I40.1 Isolated myocarditis, I40.8 Other acute myocarditis and I40.9 Acute myocarditis, unspecified.
I've excluded report codes for infective myocarditis, which are by far the most common types (often viral, sometimes bacterial) but which by definition are not caused by vaccines.

Presumably Brenda Baletti, author of the Children's Health Defense article means well.
She does not want an increase in preventable deaths of, or severe illness in, children whose health is already compromised and who probably face many challenges already.

In her write-up of the Andrews/ Parker/Horne 2024 paper, she states

Clinically vulnerable children were excluded.

It does not seem to have crossed her mind that clinically vulnerable children are those most at risk.
That is why their vaccinations are prioritised.
Excluding them from the study inevitably means that the risk of COVID-19 complications in that subject group is low.

The parents of vulnerable children love them just as much as any other parents love their children; they are not gullible fools who wouldn't notice myocarditis in their child or an upsurge of it in their children's peers (perhaps via support groups, specialised day centres or clinic visits).

In passing, in the UK "NHS" is the abbreviation for "National Health Service" (and has been since 1948),
not "National Healthcare System" as Baletti says.

 

[Mendel]

There doesn't appear to have been an upsurge of myocarditis deaths in children in England and Wales since they started receiving COVID-19 vaccinations (pericarditis tends to be a significantly less severe condition).

Death figures don't really give the full picture, neither for Covid infections nor for myocarditis, in children. That's why the study looked at hospitalisations etc.

Children considered to be at greater risk of serious illness from COVID 19 were prioritised for vaccination, a policy that remains.

Nobody advocates withholding vaccines from those children.

The question is, should Covid vaccinations be recommended for children in general? The answer varies by country.
It'd also be interesting at what age the benefits of vaccination definitely outweigh the drawbacks.

And there's always been the thought that infected children, while not at much risk themselves, could infect vulnerable adults. However, the study shows that vaccinating children seems to only confer a short-term benefit in this regard.

Presumably Brenda Baletti, author of the Children's Health Defense article means well.

Can you quote anything she writes that you disagree with? or that you think is false?

 

[Juanne Pili]

In the context of the article it is a partial truth that without context might be misleading. While we know the risks of COVID-19 to most children is very small, there were deaths of children and young people from COVID-19 in the United Kingdom and many other countries:
In response to a Freedom Of Information request, the Office for National Statistics (confusingly, "National" here means England and Wales, about 88% of UK population; Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate, similar organisations) said

From March 2020 to October 2022, there are 88 deaths registered as due to COVID-19 in England and Wales. This is for the age under 1 to age 18 age band.

Deaths of children from COVID-19 in England and Wales 2020 to 2022, 01 December 2022,
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...hildrenfromcovid19inenglandandwales2020to2022

It seems likely that without vaccination, the number of UK child deaths due to COVID 19 would have been higher. Children considered to be at greater risk of serious illness from COVID 19 were prioritised for vaccination, a policy that remains. The possible side-effects of COVID-19 vaccination, including e.g. myocarditis, are considered against the limited benefits that the vaccines confer to most children.

Yes, it also seems to me to be a problem of missing context. This afternoon (Italian time zone) I will carefully read the sources you suggested. Thanks!

 

[FatPhil]

Can you quote anything she writes that you disagree with? or that you think is false?

She doesn't have much of an academic presence, much more of a campaigning one.
However, apparently she's pushed an anti-globalist anti-vaccination narrative before:

Claim:
HPV vaccines are ineffective and cause side effects including autoimmune and neurological disorders, based on VAERS reports

Verdict:
Incorrect

Verdict detail

Incorrect:Evidence from recent cohort studies has found that HPV vaccines are effective in reducing cervical cancer; to claim that no such studies exist is erroneous. Studies have also found no association between autoimmune or neurological diseases and the HPV vaccines.
Misleading: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data alone cannot confirm a causal relationship between vaccines and serious adverse events. Simply because an adverse event occurred after vaccination doesn't mean that the vaccination was the cause.

-- https://science.feedback.org/review...hpv-vaccination-campaign-mass-casualty-event/

That /Science Feedback/ page expands bigly on that verdict, and seems well referenced. Credentialed scientists have also offered summary opinions that support the "incorrect" conclusion.

 

[Juanne Pili]

The question is, should Covid vaccinations be recommended for children in general? The answer varies by country.
It'd also be interesting at what age the benefits of vaccination definitely outweigh the drawbacks.

And there's always been the thought that infected children, while not at much risk themselves, could infect vulnerable adults. However, the study shows that vaccinating children seems to only confer a short-term benefit in this regard.

Yes, but we already knew that it was necessary to do subsequent booster doses, in addition to the second. Furthermore, in schools, other precautions were not always followed, such as distancing and the use of adequate masks. However, in my opinion it is relevant that the conclusions do not state that the risks outweigh the benefits.

 

[FatPhil]

She doesn't have much of an academic presence, much more of a campaigning one.

From the horse's mouth - she ain't no biologist:

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.

-- https://childrenshealthdefense.org/authors/brenda-baletti/

Post-graduate degree, eh?

Project: Amazonia is OURS! Governance, Resistance, and new Socio-territorialities in the Lower Brazilian Amazon
Abstract
This dissertation examines the relationship between new regimes of governance and resistance in the Brazilian Amazon at a time when the "progressive" government seeks to solve food, energy, and environmental crises through neo-extractive development. Governments and their corporate partners are re-organizing Amazonian territory to meet environmental, social, and accumulation imperatives of identified relevant actors. By exploring the logic and practices of government-led territorial re-ordering, as well as everyday practices and rebellions through which social movements break with this logic and re-territorialize their spaces, this dissertation builds a theory of governance and resistance adequate to the impasse of seemingly unending crisis and the superimposition of multiple social and spatial logics.

-- https://www.acls.org/fellow-grantees/brenda-c-baletti/

This is my g/f's field. She's had a bunch of theses on very similar topics (really similar, even down to the Amazon basin part) pass through her hands just in the last few months. I showed her that, and she shrugged, saying "yeah, they all do that", and "but she's not given us a clue what her theory is, so it's a poor abstract". The scare-quotes around "progressive" does show a lack of a neutral voice (you may read that as "bias"). So, yup, she's clearly heavily rooted in the socio-political things, not biological stuff.

But more recently, taught at Duke ... her most recent rating at RMP:

Quality 1.0
Difficulty 5.0
Mar 2nd, 2024

Focus was on ridiculous conspiracy theories.

-- https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/1785890

 

[Mendel]

Yes, but we already knew that it was necessary to do subsequent booster doses, in addition to the second. Furthermore, in schools, other precautions were not always followed, such as distancing and the use of adequate masks. However, in my opinion it is relevant that the conclusions do not state that the risks outweigh the benefits.

The conclusions do not state it, but the analysis supports it.
For children, reduction in risk of Covid hospitalisation was 0.02 while the increase in risk for pericarditis was 0.22.

The Covid risks increase with age, so it's definitely good to vaccinate older people, but for children (if they're not at risk specifically) the decision has always been much less clear-cut.

Also, in kids, the pericarditis symptoms aren't that bad either, so it couldn't be said that the vaccination is unsafe.

 

[John J.]

Can you quote anything she writes that you disagree with? or that you think is false?

"This study clearly shows that Pfizer's COVID vaccine provides almost no benefit to children and adolescents, but does increase their risk of myocarditis and pericarditis," said Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer of Children's Health Defense.

The study (which is not yet peer-reviewed) indicates there was little benefit to children who were not clinically vulnerable.
Baletti quotes Brian Hooker, who fails to make this distinction; vaccines almost certainly benefit some children, who were excluded from the study.

Brian S. Hooker a biologist and chemist who was department chair and Professor Emeritus of Biology at Simpson University. He is known for promoting the false claim that vaccines cause autism...
Hooker is known for his anti-vaccine activism and his claims of conflicts of interest within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention... ...Hooker has no background or qualifications in epidemiology.

Hooker and Andrew Wakefield have alleged scientific fraud, conspiracy, and coverup on the part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with regard to the supposed link between vaccines and autism. An online video describing this situation was debunked by Snopes.

Wikipedia, Brian Hooker (bioengineer), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Hooker_(bioengineer)

Baletti again,

Their research confirmed a large body of evidence showing links between the COVID-19 shots and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in adolescents...
There were nine cases of pericarditis and three cases of myocarditis, all in the vaccinated group.

Admittedly more of a personal interpretation of mine, but I feel Baletti is implying that myocarditis and pericarditis only occurs in vaccinated children, by citing this study in isolation. But we know that this isn't the case.

Death figures don't really give the full picture, neither for Covid infections nor for myocarditis, in children.

Wholly agree, but death is a rarely misdiagnosed or overlooked health outcome. The Office of National Statistics/ NOMIS data demonstrates that (thankfully very low numbers of) children in England and Wales died from myocarditis prior to the invention of COVID-19 vaccines; I don't think the data supports there being a significant increase in childhood myocarditis deaths post- July 2021, and this was at a time when high- and intensive care units were filled to over-capacity (i.e. higher patient to appropriately-trained staff ratios than would normally be seen as acceptable).
As Mendel implies, the burdens (and suffering incurred) of non-fatal myocarditis and pericarditis have to be balanced against the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, which are limited in otherwise healthy children; the evidence appears to be that the advisory/ vaccinating bodies in England and Wales are aware of this.

Maybe it's a matter of tone or emphasis in Baletti's article as opposed to quoted numbers that concerns me:

Of the 1,262,784 children in the adolescent part of the study — vaccinated and unvaccinated — there were only 72 emergency room visits, 90 COVID-19 hospitalizations — three of which were critical care for unvaccinated children — and no deaths.
There were nine cases of pericarditis and three cases of myocarditis, all in the vaccinated group.

Three unvaccinated children who were not known to be clinically vulnerable required critical care (almost certainly meaning respiratory support), and 87 other COVID-related hospitalisations at a time when hospitals were desperate to avoid non-acute admissions.

We do not know what proportion of the 12 myocarditis and pericarditis cases were due to vaccines. We are not told if any of the 12 myocarditis/ pericarditis sufferers required admission to hospital (though an initial 24 hour period for ECGs/ ultrasounds/ t-troponin tests etc. might not be unusual).

 

[Mendel]

Baletti quotes Brian Hooker, who fails to make this distinction; vaccines almost certainly benefit some children, who were excluded from the study.

Granted.

Admittedly more of a personal interpretation of mine, but I feel Baletti is implying that myocarditis and pericarditis only occurs in vaccinated children, by citing this study in isolation. But we know that this isn't the case.

Your quote shows Baletti simply stating there's a link, which is uncontroversial.

Three unvaccinated children who were not known to be clinically vulnerable required critical care (almost certainly meaning respiratory support), and 87 other COVID-related hospitalisations at a time when hospitals were desperate to avoid non-acute admissions.

We do not know what proportion of the 12 myocarditis and pericarditis cases were due to vaccines. We are not told if any of the 12 myocarditis/ pericarditis sufferers required admission to hospital (though an initial 24 hour period for ECGs/ ultrasounds/ t-troponin tests etc. might not be unusual).

The study does have data on this. Without diving into the supplementary tables, here it is.

Adolescents (age 12-15)

For adolescents, vaccination protected against critical care admission for Covid, but a similar number of vaccinated adolescents was admitted to emergency care for pericarditis. (I think that may have been out of a larger group, though.)

Children (age 5-11)

For children aged 5-11, neither Covid nor pericarditis required critical care. myocarditis was not observed in that age group.

The CHD article lumps both age groups together; this feels misleading to me, especially when they reference myocarditis.

 

[John J.]

We are not told if any of the 12 myocarditis/ pericarditis sufferers required admission to hospital (though an initial 24 hour period for ECGs/ ultrasounds/ t-troponin tests etc. might not be unusual).

The study does have data on this.

Ah, you're quite right, my bad.

Speaking anecdotally, but a non-surgical, unscheduled hospital admission of 2 days in which one (presumably the first!) is spent in a high or intensive care environment is not unknown but is very rare, and sometimes represents an error in the transfer of care, e.g. (and completely hypothetically) a primary or less acute secondary care setting arranging an admission to a high care environment for a patient who does not require that level of care.

There may be some (I think unintended) misleading or inconsistent use of terminology in the Andrews, Parker, Horne et al. 2024 paper,

Less than 51% of adolescents diagnosed with pericarditis were admitted to hospital...
...The maximum length of hospitalisation stay was 0 days for pericarditis...

It doesn't make much sense to say that up to approx. 49% of a group required hospitalisation, which sounds dramatic, and the maximum length of stay was zero days, which sounds ridiculous. Maybe the authors mean <24 hours.

The CHD article lumps both age groups together; this feels misleading to me, especially when they reference myocarditis.

Yes; myocarditis is more prevalent in older teens/ young adults than in younger children; this was the case before anyone had ever had a COVID-19 vaccine, and it seems that the same applies to the greater risk associated with COVID-19 vaccines.

 

[Mendel]

It doesn't make much sense to say that up to approx. 49% of a group required hospitalisation, which sounds dramatic, and the maximum length of stay was zero days, which sounds ridiculous. Maybe the authors mean <24 hours.

I assume that's either because of privacy rules to do with the use of the data set, or to express that the small incidence numbers do not allow exact risks to be stated, because of inherent randomness.

Their language is consistent with zero hospital admissions for pericarditis.